From: Los <los@c...>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:12:45 -0500
Subject: Engineers <Was: Infanty TO&E >
> John M. Atkinson wrote: > > Take the comments in context and I believe you will have to agree I guess when I think assualt pioneers I think specifically about troops like the specialist German battalions used in Stalingrad. They took engineers and gave them specific equipment and training in MOUT. (More than they already had) They were employed as formation in their own right not penny packetted out to line units. Nor did theuy build fortifications, disarm or implant minefields (Except in support of their own operations) Combat engineers are the more familiar breed that perform the whole gambit of combat engineering tasks though are not trained in assault functions to a fever pitch as are their Assault pioneer brothers as are their brothers. All of this of course does not reflect actual policy but just my opinion of what an assault pioneer calls to my mind. > granted it's just a National Guard division, but we (229th Engineer Regardless of the quality of your particular unit, in the regular army line battalions train day in and day out in their specialty, infantry combat. They have more experience in it, more profficiency in it and they should because that's what they do all the time. Engineers have their own training and missions to accomplish in the combat zone, which is why they must dedicate a certain portion of their time to infantry training. If I have a engineer battalion that's the best infantry battalion in the division then one of two things have occured. The divison has a piss poor battle focused training program for its infantry battalions, or a piss poor battle focussed training for its engineer battalion, which is spending all its time playing infantry and not spending its training wisely working on engineering. Any decent squad, infantry or not, can win a squad competition. It's how companies and battalions perform on the battlefield that matters.